Since there's no special thread for questions to the staff how to work with the site, here's one, for contributors and all who want to help but also want to do it correct!Many questions were asked in the Official V2 Feedback thread, and since that thread is only for software, all site-related questions/answers can be moved here.

So, my first question here is: which date of release should be if the album was released via Internet first and then on the real CD but later? For example, Internet release date is 1st April 2012, but album will be officially available on the CD only in 28 October 2012.

I'm no authority but from what I've seen on MA albums tend to have the physical release date and then a note saying "album was available online/for download since x", something like that. And it does make sense to have the physical release date because as you say, that's the "official" release date.

So, the album of Wizardmask Internet release date is 1st April 2012, and I should set this date, and the album will be out 28th October 2012 officially and publicly available on their live show - it should be mentioned in the add. notes, right? I'm little confused because 28th Oct 2012 is still future

... for fuck's sake. *deletes Wizardmask, making a note to restore it on October 28th*

Okay... erm, yes. That probably shouldn't have been accepted prior to the release date; then again, with everything in bloody Russian, there was no blatant indication on the page that the picture of the packaged, professionally printed jewel-cased CD wasn't even released yet.

Exactly where on the band's page does it say the release date is the 28th of October?

Actually it's on the "wall" on their VKontakte page, hardly can be seen (only if you click to show the full post). But I'd knew it from their singer, Svetlana, that the first public release will be selling 28th Oct 2012 on their show.Photos of the printed CD usually available before the album official public release, especially in those social network band pages, and it can take months to get printed CDs to the public

Thanks for bringing it to my attention, mate... although ideally, you should've done it sooner when we talked about it. Nevermind though, that's not your fault, as you weren't fully aware of the "digital VS physical" release date until now. If you see any other such cases, feel free to bring them up in this thread.

although ideally, you should've done it sooner when we talked about it.

I should, but when we talked about it I didn't even look at the release date So, when Wizardmask will be restored, please, sorry, that I'm asking it again but which date will be shown on the release page? Digital or physical?

although ideally, you should've done it sooner when we talked about it.

I should, but when we talked about it I didn't even look at the release date So, when Wizardmask will be restored, please, sorry, that I'm asking it again but which date will be shown on the release page? Digital or physical?

Alhadis wrote:

The date of release should ideally be the day it was released digitally, with the date of the physical release described in the additional notes.

Next question is about artist name spelling. For example, artist's name is writing not in Latin letters, and if the artist uses an alias, what name should appearing in the "real name" field: only original or original with English/Latin transliteration? Like this one: http://www.metal-archives.com/artists/Elsa/129644 ?

One thing I just noticed, for Hungarian it's standard (and official) practise to put the surname before the given name, e.g. Ecsédi Dániel, something that distinguishes it from most other European languages (although it's also common and semi-accepted in Austria, I might add). So whenever possible it would only be correct to put the Hungarian form in the real name field.

It seems it doesn't matter for duplicates as the search still yields positive results if you reverse the names, but just for correctness' sake it's still worth doing.

That's something that might be resolved if the site manages to support reissues/rereleases, but for now, it probably wouldn't be wise to dump the lyrics into the additional notes along with the bonus track listing.

One thing I just noticed, for Hungarian it's standard (and official) practise to put the surname before the given name, e.g. Ecsédi Dániel, something that distinguishes it from most other European languages (although it's also common and semi-accepted in Austria, I might add). So whenever possible it would only be correct to put the Hungarian form in the real name field.

It seems it doesn't matter for duplicates as the search still yields positive results if you reverse the names, but just for correctness' sake it's still worth doing.

I had been wondering about those Hungarian names; a while ago I noticed there was quite of number of artists on MA whose names are given as surname, given name. So it would be okay to change those to the regular, standard (Western) way that is used on MA (given name, family name) in the Artist name/alias field, and leave the Hungarian way in the Real/full name field? (Sort of like how it is with Japanese artists.)

Question about tagging songs as instrumentals: are songs with no singing words but with: singing like "A-a-a-a-a", "Oh-oh-oh-oh" / laughing / background talking / narrating considered instrumentals or they should be clear from human voices completely, just instruments playing?

Hmm, good question. If there are no actual lyrics and just wordless chanting, I'm fine with tagging them as instrumental. For narrating, if the narration is printed in the lyrics it's okay to add it in the lyrics.

Then again you have weird cases like Bal-Sagoth where there are printed lyrics (parts of the story) for actually completely instrumental songs.

_________________

Von Cichlid wrote:

I work with plenty of Oriental and Indian persons and we get along pretty good, and some females as well.

Markeri, in 2013 wrote:

a fairly agreed upon date [of the beginning of metal] is 1969. Metal is almost 25 years old

Hmm, good question. If there are no actual lyrics and just wordless chanting, I'm fine with tagging them as instrumental. For narrating, if the narration is printed in the lyrics it's okay to add it in the lyrics.

Agreed.

Morrigan wrote:

Then again you have weird cases like Bal-Sagoth where there are printed lyrics (parts of the story) for actually completely instrumental songs.

There's always something, eh? Hm, one could either tag the tracks as instrumental and add the printed "lyrics" to the additional notes or add them normally to the songs, explaining in the notes that some tracks are actually instrumentals.

EDIT: Or actually you can do parts of both. Tag the songs as instrumental and add the "lyrics" as well, preferable with a preface included "This is the story printed in the booklet, the song is actually instrumental." or something similar. The "instrumental" tag then becomes clickable just like "show lyrics".

Joined: Tue May 31, 2011 1:24 amPosts: 2789Location: A step closer to home

Posted: Sun Dec 02, 2012 7:18 pm

Quote:

Note that we are also keeping the old "year of formation" field, as this field is used for advanced search purposes, and is also not necessarily the same year as the first year in the band's history (for bands that changed names, for instance).

Okay, so let's say Band A formed in 2000, and changed their name to Band B in 2004. If Band B has their own Archives entry, should their page's "Formed in" field be 2000 instead of 2004?

Note that we are also keeping the old "year of formation" field, as this field is used for advanced search purposes, and is also not necessarily the same year as the first year in the band's history (for bands that changed names, for instance).

Okay, so let's say Band A formed in 2000, and changed their name to Band B in 2004. If Band B has their own Archives entry, should their page's "Formed in" field be 2000 instead of 2004?

That's how I've been doing it, considering that both incarnations were technically "formed in" different years ...

How about for members when their old band name has no page on MA [not metal, no physical releases, etc.]?

Ex.: Years active: 2001-2002 (as Band A), 2002-present

Should the vocalist (or whomever--been there since the beginning) be listed as 2001-present or 2002-present?

Essentially, should band members' individual years active with a band apply to both incarnations if not all name changes have their own pages? [Obviously if both names had their own pages, there'd be no need for my post ...]

A band member can't be saved to a year earlier than a band's year-of-formation anyway... the form won't let you.

Having said that, a band member's years in a particular incarnation should relate *only* to that member's involvement in said band.

For unlisted incarnations, you can always add them as an unlisted band if you must, but... try not to go ballistic with adding dozens of brief, earlier name-changes a band went through in their seminal years before settling on the present one.

A band member can't be saved to a year earlier than a band's year-of-formation anyway... the form won't let you.

Oh ... never noticed.

Alhadis wrote:

Having said that, a band member's years in a particular incarnation should relate *only* to that member's involvement in said band.

That's what I figured.

Alhadis wrote:

For unlisted incarnations, you can always add them as an unlisted band if you must, but... try not to go ballistic with adding dozens of brief, earlier name-changes a band went through in their seminal years before settling on the present one.

No need really since they can be added under the "Years active:" field ... *shrug*

If an artist plays/has played all instruments in a band/album but the instruments he/she played are known, should his/her lineup role be shown as "All instruments" or "Guitars, Bass, Drum programming, Keyboards"?

_________________Formerly known as HouseSpiders

vacca wrote:

"Pointwhoring is no fun. Pointwhoring endangers the life and happiness of millions. It must stop. We appeal in particular to the youth of today, stop the madness. There are better things in life."

I actually strongly discourage using "All instruments" as an alternative to putting "Guitars, Bass, Drum programming, Keyboards" (etc) if the latter are known and unambiguously confirmed.

Not every band uses bass in their music, and some artists might switch between drums and drum programming. Putting "All instruments" for the sake of brevity doesn't come across as too encyclopaedic to me, IMHO.

(Now keep in mind that's not just random nonsense thrown into the booklet...the vocalist is indeed saying that, more-or-less.)

So...would the song title justify including lyrical themes, when the songs themselves have no lyrics?

So basically "lyrical" themes that only describe song titles? That seems pointless and misleading to me. I'm fine with deleting themes of glossolalia bands, provided all of their material is like that.

MalignantThrone wrote:

EDIT: Another question...should "singles" which were never made available for purchase or download be deleted? See, for example, Waking the Cadaver's "Snapped in Half".

Um, yeah... That means it was never released so it shouldn't be listed in the discography. That single has 9 reviews, though? What's the deal with that? Was it leaked?

So basically "lyrical" themes that only describe song titles? That seems pointless and misleading to me. I'm fine with deleting themes of glossolalia bands, provided all of their material is like that.

And if we follow that logic, we might need to end up double-checking every sketchy bedroom BM band whose lyrics aren't published. It's all too easy to improvise vocals in black/death/grind, and many bands don't even bother actually *using* any lyrics. Should we be clearing the lyrical themes of every gory band whose song titles are the only indication of what their music is about?

That seems kinda counter-intuitive, especially when the titles alone give an idea of what a band's "themes" pertain to (lyrical or not, themes should still be reflected in other forms such as graphics and song titles...)

So basically "lyrical" themes that only describe song titles? That seems pointless and misleading to me. I'm fine with deleting themes of glossolalia bands, provided all of their material is like that.

And if we follow that logic, we might need to end up double-checking every sketchy bedroom BM band whose lyrics aren't published. It's all too easy to improvise vocals in black/death/grind, and many bands don't even bother actually *using* any lyrics. Should we be clearing the lyrical themes of every gory band whose song titles are the only indication of what their music is about?

That seems kinda counter-intuitive, especially when the titles alone give an idea of what a band's "themes" pertain to (lyrical or not, themes should still be reflected in other forms such as graphics and song titles...)

It's simple. If we know for certain that a band doesn't have lyrics then we delete the themes. If it's sketchy, leave it. The lyrical themes field is a cesspool as it is and not exactly subject to strict regulations...

I see what you mean by themes, but the field is called "lyrical themes", not "general themes" or something. I just find it weird because it implies lyrics where there are none.